Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Off Topic => The Jungle => Topic started by: Wheres Izzy on September 01, 2004, 03:16:40 PM



Title: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Wheres Izzy on September 01, 2004, 03:16:40 PM
I am a smoker and I get irritated by the fact that in the ny/nj area we can't smoke anywhere anymore. I don't know if our friends overseas on this board share this problem but it's a heavy annoyance over here. Any non-smokers feel free to post your annoyances with us, as trivial as I believe them all to be.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Izzy on September 01, 2004, 03:22:29 PM
U smokers should be hung from the nearest lamp-post.

Kill urself by all means - but its outrageous u can get away with killing the rest of us through passive smoking, it makes me livid - to say smokers are selfish is not nearly going far enough

rant over.



Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Rockin' Rose on September 01, 2004, 04:40:46 PM
Here in Finland the laws aren't quite that strict, in the bars and restaurants there are usually two sides one for the smokers and the other for the non-smokers which is quite satisfying but lately there has been some talk about how the laws should be made similar to Norway and Ireland where you can't smoke any where (I think) and this is something I hope doesn't happen because a lot of my friends smoke as do I so when in a bar it would be just, well ridicules as there would be at least one person missing from the group as he/she is outside for a smoke.

Around May/June I met four people from Ireland in Lisbon and they told that because of the smoking laws of Ireland and the fact that they live about one hour's drive from N-Ireland they now a days go to the bars and clubs in N-Ireland.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: loretian on September 01, 2004, 05:11:06 PM
I don't smoke tobacco, but honestly, it's a tough situation.  I don't like laws the prevent anyone from smoking, and I don't really believe that second smoke does much, if any, damage to the average person (we've discussed this before, waitresses and people that work at bars are excluded from this statement), but I really, really don't like having to smell tobacco smoke when other people are smoking it.  More specifically, I can't stand all my friends that smoke around me at bars, it just stinks and my clothes and hair stinks afterwards.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: SLCPUNK on September 01, 2004, 05:46:37 PM
I used to smoke. I apologize for smoking around people who did not.

We know 100% that it can kill you. We also know that second hand smoke kills people.

Cry all you want about not being able to smoke. But where is the logic?

Smoke if you want, but don't get upset because other people don't want to smell/breath your crap (that will kill them down the road) too.



Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: SLCPUNK on September 01, 2004, 05:46:53 PM
I used to smoke. I apologize for smoking around people who did not.

We know 100% that it can kill you. We also know that second hand smoke kills people.

Cry all you want about not being able to smoke. But where is the logic?

Smoke if you want, but don't get upset because other people don't want to smell/breath your crap (that will kill them down the road) too.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Chris Misfit on September 01, 2004, 06:30:56 PM
U smokers should be hung from the nearest lamp-post.

Kill urself by all means - but its outrageous u can get away with killing the rest of us through passive smoking, it makes me livid - to say smokers are selfish is not nearly going far enough

rant over.




Seriously, not all smokers are that bad. i would never smoke if I was near, or in the same room as a non-smoker, apart from a pub.

What I don't get is the shitty attitudes we get. You fuckers drive around in fucking jeeps and shit, and then complain about us guys. Blow it out your fucking bellend, you hypocrites.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: axls_locomotive on September 01, 2004, 06:44:02 PM
i am also of the opinion that second hand smoke can kill and do not like being near smokers...

i dont like it that people can smoke in restaurants...or anywhere near food...bars and clubs would be ok with me though

personally i cant breathe where there is smoke...i dont know how anyone could inhale that crap for a minute never mind all day...


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Hammy on September 01, 2004, 06:58:01 PM
I'm a smoker but i would never smoke in a restaurant, it may surprise some of you but many of us smokers don't like to have a cigarette with our meal.  Fine i smoke in pubs but i believe a pub without smoke is like a pub without beer, they just go hand in hand.  It's a scientific fact that a cigarette makes your beer taste better and vice-versa, i see it as part of pub and club culture.  People know what to expect when they go in so don't complain.  Maybe they should have some non-smoking pubs that ive heard they are setting up (some are already around e.g. Ireland) but you still need smoking ones.  I never smoke in my house, at my college we always had a smokers corner we went to which kept us away from all you normal people.  As far as im concerned most non-smokers just don't 'get it' and have nothing better to do than complain.  It's quite easy to avoid us smokers, i will move away from you if smoking or if you ask but if you just sit there and give me an evil stare you can have fun sitting there all night as far as im concerned it's your choice to move.  See that's what bothers me i sit down with my friends, spark up, we relax then some non-smoking friends/accaintances will sit down chatting like you do.  Then they procede to complain about the smoke and how it's bad for them and us.  Well they saw we were smoking when they came over if they wanted to avoid it they should not of come over in the first place :rant:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: crazejosh on September 01, 2004, 07:10:21 PM
I smoke, there are no laws in Rhode island against it, therefore i smoke like a chimney :smoking:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: badapple81 on September 01, 2004, 07:31:53 PM
This morning on the way to work I saw this lady smoking in her car with her kids, windows closed. Now that's just wrong wrong wrong.



Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Hammy on September 01, 2004, 07:39:30 PM
This morning on the way to work I saw this lady smoking in her car with her kids, windows closed. Now that's just wrong wrong wrong.


That i do agree with not only do i think it's wrong to allow your children to inhale your smoke but it's also setting a bad example.  I have always said that i will quit if and when i become a dad.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: GNR-Chris on September 01, 2004, 07:40:55 PM
I'm a non-smoker and I have lung problems so I don't like to be near smoke. Its not so much a problem in most pubs, as they are often well ventilated.

The main problem to me is when I go home and realise that all my clothes stink of fag smoke. Thats a real bitch cos then I have to wash my clothes - and thats harder than you think cos my washing machine keeps leaking? :rant:

I also hate to see people pushing their children in a pushchair blowing all their smoke over their baby, I mean c'mon - grow a brain moron? >:(

GNR-Chris


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Oddy on September 01, 2004, 08:01:02 PM
i've never smoked a cigarette in my life, not even a puff.

however, i do enjoy the occasional cigar

yeah its weird i know........

the way i see it, i cant really become addicted to cigars, because i dont have them often, they cost so much too.

yes i know that all it takes is one puff of some tobacco to get addicted, but i choose to ignore that in my reasoning. i have a cigar anywhere from once every month to once every 3 months usually.

there's nothing like walking into a room full of smokers with a fat cuban cigar, blowing cigar smoke everywhere, its like it.........yes..........yes it almost annoys them. well not really.

but i dunno if banning smoking in pubs would work. i mean when i walk into a pub it looks like 80% are smoking. it would seem to impractical. where would smokers go, not that i care, but they have to smoke somewhere. i agree with the seperated bar seems like a good idea.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Dizzy on September 01, 2004, 08:08:54 PM
It's a scientific fact that a cigarette makes your beer taste better and vice-versa

Really?? A scientific fact, eh?? Hmm, I wonder why many highly skilled scientists labored long, strenuous hours to discover and prove this "scientific fact".? ?:hihi:


Quote
As far as im concerned most non-smokers just don't 'get it' and have nothing better to do than complain.

Incorrect.? Not all non-smokers are as "considerate" as you are.  I have bad allergies and a high intolerance of cigarette smoke.  I've been to concerts where smoking was prohibited in the seats, but assholes light up anyway and then give me dirty looks and tell me to "fuck off" if I dare ask them politely to obey the damn rules.? This has happened on multiple occasions.

Also, I was once at a club where this stupid bitch blew smoke literally right in my face.? Now, I know it's a club and there is lots of smoking, but blowing smoke in someone's face is rude under any circumstances, pure and simple.? What's even worse, rather than apologizing, the lamebrained bitch gave me a dirty look and flicked her cigarette ash at me as it were my fault.

Fact is, many smokers simply don't give a damn whose air and space they're polluting, because they feel their "right" to smoke is more important than the health of those around them.


I used to smoke. I apologize for smoking around people who did not.

We know 100% that it can kill you. We also know that second hand smoke kills people.

Cry all you want about not being able to smoke. But where is the logic?

Smoke if you want, but don't get upset because other people don't want to smell/breathe your crap (that will kill them down the road) too.

Finally you and I agree on something!? I have absolutely no sympathy for smokers.? I say raise the damn cigarette tax and ban it from all public places, because it's disgusting and irredeemable.? If you must smoke, pollute your own house and vehicle.

And on a side rant, I want to say that, on an aesthetic basis, smoking is doubly disgusting by a female.? It pains me to see attractive young ladies ruin their appearance by putting cigarettes in their mouths.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Miz on September 01, 2004, 10:00:09 PM
I don't smoke, but quite a few of my friends do.  I don't really care unless we're in a small space, like a car or something.  I spend so much time in pubs that i'm just used to smoke now.  I'm not especially worried about passive smoking, because, (and this is true) to do as much damage as half an hour next to a barbecue, you'd have to continuosly passive smoke for a month.  Now how many people do you think die from too many barbecues?

But I am young and ignorant so who knows...


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Laura on September 01, 2004, 10:01:42 PM
i am a very big non-smoker... why should u be aloud to smoke in a place and kill everyone around you... we dont let people drive drunk cause it kills people so why let ur second hand smoke infect my lungs and other inocent people. Children get ear infections and athsma from there parents of family smokin around them. It's an awful habit that all smokers should try to quit even though i know its very hard, ur just killin urself and the people around you!


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Sukie on September 02, 2004, 12:05:21 AM

Seriously, not all smokers are that bad. i would never smoke if I was near, or in the same room as a non-smoker, apart from a pub.

What I don't get is the shitty attitudes we get. You fuckers drive around in fucking jeeps and shit, and then complain about us guys. Blow it out your fucking bellend, you hypocrites.

Oh god...I qualify for BOTH of those.  A jeep driver and a smoker.   :nervous:  What's that make me, Chris?

Smoking is my ONE bad habit.  I don't do other drugs besides caffeine and the occasional mixed drink.  I don't smoke around babies or inside concert venues.  If I have company over to my house that doesn't smoke, I'll go into another room in MY HOUSE to satisfy my craving.  Like others have said, a lot of us smokers try to be as considerate as we can.  Give us a break, how 'bout it?


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Doc Emmett Brown on September 02, 2004, 02:22:11 AM
This morning on the way to work I saw this lady smoking in her car with her kids, windows closed. Now that's just wrong wrong wrong.


That i do agree with not only do i think it's wrong to allow your children to inhale your smoke but it's also setting a bad example.? I have always said that i will quit if and when i become a dad.

My friend recently became a dad and he tried to quit for the past 9 months.  He has not managed to quit successfully yet, so the wife bans him to the patio when he gets the urge to light one up.  So he moved his laptop and desk out there as well  :hihi:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Mr Cowbell ? on September 02, 2004, 04:27:04 AM
Although Im not a big smoker. I do enjoy smoking at a pub/bar. I think a bar/pub should be able to determine themselfs if smoking is aloud. Here in Michigan its legal to smoke in bars and all bars allow it, if a non smoker doesnt like it, there are plenty of places that dont allow smoking they can go to.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Aava on September 02, 2004, 01:05:39 PM
I don?t smoke, so the thing I hate the most is when my clothes and hair smells smoke after spending night (or just an hour) in the pub!
Mornings after pub nights, are horrible enough without that smell.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Izzy on September 02, 2004, 02:54:07 PM
U smokers should be hung from the nearest lamp-post.

Kill urself by all means - but its outrageous u can get away with killing the rest of us through passive smoking, it makes me livid - to say smokers are selfish is not nearly going far enough

rant over.




Seriously, not all smokers are that bad. i would never smoke if I was near, or in the same room as a non-smoker, apart from a pub.

What I don't get is the shitty attitudes we get. You fuckers drive around in fucking jeeps and shit, and then complain about us guys. Blow it out your fucking bellend, you hypocrites.

Er...i don't even have a car ???

And....don't smokers with cars polute the same as a non smokers with cars? I don't even begin to get ur point (if there is one there)

Smokers not only pollute with their cars but add to that with their fags....


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: kj_jive on September 02, 2004, 05:22:38 PM
There are worse things in live than a little cigarette.  Get off the smoker's backs for goodness sake!  Complaining about some second hand smoke...please get off your pedastool and grow some balls.  Sounding like whiney little beotches.

 If you don't like smoke, tough...it's illegal inside any public building here in Delaware (including bars and restaurants) and my guess is that it probably will be everywhere else soon too. 

It doesn't even smell bad and a little smoke never hurt anybody...get back in your bubbles.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Chris Misfit on September 02, 2004, 07:24:12 PM
Quote
Er...i don't even have a car

I didn't mean you, you tit.


Quote
And....don't smokers with cars polute the same as a non smokers with cars? I don't even begin to get ur point

Yes, yes. Right. In my old job, they (non-smokers) tried to get us stop smoking there (we smoked outside, away from everyone) but this wasn't good enough. They did not want us actually having a smoke whilst on the premises, because "it still polloutes the air". Now,  these are the same "non-smokers" who go to collect their kids from school driving a car that polloutes, err fucking children. Now, I realise the problems some people have with smokers, and I do sympathise (my spelling sucks tonight) but I don't understand the general hatred, for we all polloute, and we all do things that effect others well being. Hey, I ain't the fucker who ran down your child drunk "ban, fucking cars".


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: AxlsMainMan on September 03, 2004, 11:42:49 AM
Well live in a small village about 20 mins outisde of Kingston, Ontario, and its illegal to smoke in any public buildings except your own home. It doesnt really bother me if i cant smoke in restaurants and what not, because it does upset my parents that i smoke and sine i still live with them i can easily just go outside and smoke or whatever. At school i smoke heavily with all my friends and you actually have to be on the sidewalk and not on school property opr you get fined and suspended which i think is ridiculous. you get 120 or so smokers crammed on a little piece of sidewalk if theres a teacher around. The restaurant maybe 5 minutes away is the only place u can smoke in our village since it doesnt fall under the by law which isnt so bad. All my girlfriends have been non smokers and it didnt bother them that i smoke, i just chew a piece of gum or w/e when im with them. By the way, having a smoke while you drink or after blazing is in fact amazing, you can suck cigarettes back like peanuts!


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Captain P?l on September 03, 2004, 11:49:15 AM
U smokers should be hung from the nearest lamp-post.

Kill urself by all means - but its outrageous u can get away with killing the rest of us through passive smoking, it makes me livid - to say smokers are selfish is not nearly going far enough

rant over.



yeah!! you go!

and not only that, in the working life a "smoking brake" is OK.... but what about the non-smokers? they work their ass off covering them...


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Chris Misfit on September 03, 2004, 11:51:46 AM
Quote
but what about the non-smokers? they work their ass off covering them...]

Yeah, that's also the smokers fault. Why don't you complain to your management, genious.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Captain P?l on September 03, 2004, 11:55:17 AM
Quote
but what about the non-smokers? they work their ass off covering them...]

Yeah, that's also the smokers fault. Why don't you complain to your management, genious.

it takes a REAL genious to misspell GENIUS....

and maybe we arent working our asses of, but still the workers do have an "apology" for taking that brake, even if it isnt time for brake...


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Wheres Izzy on September 03, 2004, 12:18:20 PM
at my job most of the non-smokers hang out with us while we smoke. Not to mention I have been prmotoed tywice this year at my job...so all of us smokers are not exactly slacking off.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Captain P?l on September 03, 2004, 12:36:59 PM
at my job most of the non-smokers hang out with us while we smoke. Not to mention I have been prmotoed tywice this year at my job...so all of us smokers are not exactly slacking off.

i didnt mean you are slacking off.... just if you think of it, there are breaks for a reason... and some work places are cool. but ifi walked outside to take a sip of coke and relax a bit that wouldnt be allright... (though coke can be used while beeing inside..)


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Chris Misfit on September 03, 2004, 02:07:33 PM
Quote
it takes a REAL genious to misspell GENIUS....

Haha, I'll shut up now.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Dizzy on September 03, 2004, 06:31:28 PM
It doesn't even smell bad and a little smoke never hurt anybody...get back in your bubbles.

The only question I have for you is in what bubble are you living?  Cigarette smoke smells like shit and and it harms everybody.  I think your statements perfectly reflect the level of logical defense a smoker can offer: NONE.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: SLCPUNK on September 04, 2004, 02:42:36 AM
Quote
but what about the non-smokers? they work their ass off covering them...]

Yeah, that's also the smokers fault. Why don't you complain to your management, genious.

it takes a REAL genious to misspell GENIUS....

and maybe we arent working our asses of, but still the workers do have an "apology" for taking that brake, even if it isnt time for brake...

Yea but then you go on to spell brake wrong. Brake would be on a car....break would be something you take around noon for lunch. :hihi:

Bad puncuation too......


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: SLCPUNK on September 04, 2004, 02:45:06 AM
It doesn't even smell bad and a little smoke never hurt anybody...get back in your bubbles.

The only question I have for you is in what bubble are you living?? Cigarette smoke smells like shit and and it harms everybody.? I think your statements perfectly reflect the level of logical defense a smoker can offer: NONE.


Dizzy, we agree again. The post was too dumb to reply to, but I'll agree with your response to that dumb post.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: axls_locomotive on September 04, 2004, 07:42:22 AM
the number of passive smoking deaths in the uk is estimated to be around 1000 a year...yet a disease like aids causes only 400-500 deaths a year...

the number of people with asthma in the uk is over 3 million...and its impossible to know if the person you are next to has asthma, but there is a 1 in 20 chance that he/she is...then we have bronchitis, cancer, lung disease and numerous other conditions that are affected...im not surprised that many smokers are selfish...

i think thats cause for legislation



Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: SLCPUNK on September 04, 2004, 01:23:34 PM
Yea but then you go on to spell brake wrong.

Bad puncuation too......

And in turn, you misspelled "punctuation".? ?: ok:

Late night post. But you know my spelling too...

If one is going to post ONLY to correct an other (which is against the rules anyway) they should make sure their shit is right too. Except me of course. :hihi:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Miz on September 04, 2004, 01:30:08 PM
the number of people with asthma in the uk is over 3 million...and its impossible to know if the person you are next to has asthma, but there is a 1 in 20 chance that he/she is...then we have bronchitis, cancer, lung disease and numerous other conditions that are affected...im not surprised that many smokers are selfish...
Which reminds me...two of my friend who are smokers, have asthma.  Now, I think it's dumb to smoke normal cigarettes anyway, but when you already have asthma... :nervous:

I regularly laugh at them about this.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Chris Misfit on September 04, 2004, 02:20:23 PM
Quote
Now, I think it's dumb to smoke normal cigarettes anyway, but when you already have asthma...

Exactly.

The same people who moan about smoking, cause damage to the enviorment and people around them in their own way, yet they don't give a shit. Smokers are being banned from doing what they choose, which is fair enough, and not many of us complain, but it still does not stop the moaning from non-smokers. Like seriously, you hate it, big fucking deal, quit throwing your dummy out of the pram, grow the fuck up, and stop fucking whinging. YOU ARE GETTING YOUR OWN WAY, BE HAPPY.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Izzy on September 04, 2004, 02:52:43 PM
Quote
Now, I think it's dumb to smoke normal cigarettes anyway, but when you already have asthma...

Exactly.

The same people who moan about smoking, cause damage to the enviorment and people around them in their own way, yet they don't give a shit. Smokers are being banned from doing what they choose, which is fair enough, and not many of us complain, but it still does not stop the moaning from non-smokers. Like seriously, you hate it, big fucking deal, quit throwing your dummy out of the pram, grow the fuck up, and stop fucking whinging. YOU ARE GETTING YOUR OWN WAY, BE HAPPY.

I'm sorry, we are talking about an activity which is proven to kill those nearby through passive smoking - i'd say that was an issue to get worked up about. Smokers aren't just an inconvenience or an annoyance - they are a certified threat to the health of others

If someone was damaging your health wouldn't u be concerned?

Because the smoker is too stupid to realise he is killing himself doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Chris Misfit on September 04, 2004, 03:12:41 PM
Quote
Smokers aren't just an inconvenience or an annoyance - they are a certified threat to the health of others

Yeah, so? You want me not to smoke infront of some guy (in the pub) who's just drank 15 pints of lager, because I'm endangering their health?

My orginal point, most people who complain will never suffer from passive smoking, ever. It's not that big of a health risk. Maybe to those who work in bars, but not to the general public. You have more chance of being eaten by a 10 year old boy, than actually contracting cancer from walking down the street.

You can't smoke on buses, trains, some resturants, public offices, shopping centres,  lesuire centres, librarys, private transport, cinemas, in the workplace. Infact, the only public place you are guarenteed a smoke now is the pub. So where exactly are you going to breath in enough passive smoke, for it to endanger your health?

Quote
Because the smoker is too stupid to realise he is killing himself doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer.

Dude, your attitude is disappointing. Smoking is addictive. I do not have the willpower or infact the want to quit. I do realise I'm killing myself, but I cannot quit, and I don't really want to.

but you're generalising. Not all smokers, actually smoke when non-smokers are around. And massive steps by the goverments are being taken to stop smokers, doing what they want. How long until it's enforced in the UK? It'll happen soon. Anyway, you're big boys, if someone is smoking near you, tell them to put it out, or fucking move.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Izzy on September 04, 2004, 03:19:16 PM
Dude, your attitude is disappointing. Smoking is addictive. I do not have the willpower or infact the want to quit. I do realise I'm killing myself, but I cannot quit, and I don't really want to.


My attitude is dissapointing? Ur a seemingly intelliegent person who admits to killing himself and not caring......damn

U don't want to quit? Fair enough if spending a fortune on something u burn, slowly killing urself and smelling awful appeals to u then....go for it



Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Acquiesce on September 04, 2004, 10:54:45 PM
I have no problem with smokers who are respectful of others, but I agree with the areas that ban smoking in public places. I believe a person's right to breathe fresh air outweighs a person's right to pollute their lungs. Smoking should be banned in all public places including pubs. I shouldn't have to worry about smoke irritating my eyes and throat when I go out. I shouldn't have to worry about coming home smelling like shit because someone else has a disgusting habit. Let the smokers have to deal with the inconvenience since they are the ones who choose the nasty habit.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Wheres Izzy on September 05, 2004, 05:37:16 PM
Not to turn this into a political thread now but non-smokers should devote some of that energy about smokers ruining their health towards other, larger issues. A couple years back Bush revamped the clean water act to allow mining wastes to be dumped into streams and I don't recall hearing much fuss about it. Yet everytime I lite up I am treated like OJ.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Hammy on September 05, 2004, 06:25:30 PM
Dude, your attitude is disappointing. Smoking is addictive. I do not have the willpower or infact the want to quit. I do realise I'm killing myself, but I cannot quit, and I don't really want to.


My attitude is dissapointing? Ur a seemingly intelliegent person who admits to killing himself and not caring......damn

U don't want to quit? Fair enough if spending a fortune on something u burn, slowly killing urself and smelling awful appeals to u then....go for it


It has got nothing to do with lack of intelligence.? You dislike the smell not all people do.? Many smokers do want to quit but some don't.? People smoke because they enjoy it and even if it's killing you some may enjoy it too much to want to stop.? A friend of mine said he would rather die at 50 and smoke the rest of his life than never smoke again and die at 80.? In other words he is so addicted and enjoys it so much he'd rather be happy the next 30 years than not as happy for the next 60.? Also i don't know whether this is a 'fact' (my other scientific fact about beer making a cigarette taste better and vice-versa is a fact though Dizzy stupid as it may sound) but many have said they heard smoking is more addictive than heroin and to tell you the truth that would not surprise me.? Now this is not to cause offence but like i said before non-smokers don't 'get it' fact is your not addicted you don't get the enjoyment we do so you cannot see things our way, with the exception of those who quit but hell if you've quit you probably weren't as addicted as some :P .? I've always said unless you try something or experience something you can never trully understand it....and before any wise ass even thinks about it don't bother using the 'I don't need to put my hand in the fire to know i'll get burned' phrase, my mum has really pissed me off with that over the years.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Cornell on September 05, 2004, 07:04:48 PM
Infact, the only public place you are guarenteed a smoke now is the pub.

You can't even smoke in a pub where I live.  :-\


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Dizzy on September 05, 2004, 09:33:43 PM
my other scientific fact about beer making a cigarette taste better and vice-versa is a fact though

Really?? In what encyclopedia can I find this 'fact'?? ?:P

Quote
A friend of mine said he would rather die at 50 and smoke the rest of his life than never smoke again and die at 80.

That just goes to show how much you smokers don't get it.? Dying is the LEAST of your worries.? You will be LUCKY if all smoking does is kill you.

Ask your happy ass friend if he'll be just as content at age 50 when he's breathing through a hole in his throat because he had cancerous tumors removed.? Or ask him if he'll be happy at age 50 when he has to sleep hooked up to a respiration machine because portions of his lungs had to be removed.? Or take the case of a guy I once knew: at the age of 24, he had to have his gums removed due to cancer from smoking.? Yes, you read that right, 24 years old, having his gums removed.? And how about my former next door neighbor: a single mother of four, dead at the age of 48 due to lung cancer.? And guess what, it didn't kill her quickly.? She had to suffer through an agonizing 18 months of chemotherapy first.? She left four children behind with no parents because she "enjoyed" smoking.

So go ahead, fella.? "Enjoy" smoking.? Because it feasibly won't just kill you, it'll kill you slowly and excrutiatingly painfully.? And we'll see if you're singing that "happy" tune when your hair is falling out and your skin is turning green while you're undergoing chemotherapy treatment.

Quote
you don't get the enjoyment we do so you cannot see things our way

I'm glad you said that, because it provides a perfect avenue for refutation....

Smokers like you can't see things our way because your "enjoyment" of smoking clouds your judgment just as much as filthy cigarette smoke clouds a room.? As long as you're enjoying it, you'll keep justifying a smoker's alleged "right" to pollute the environment of a non-smoker.? And because you'll undoubtedly ignore all of what I just told you, you won't ever understand the true enjoyment of breathing clean air and having healthy lungs.

Quote
I've always said unless you try something or experience something you can never trully understand it.

Nooooo, of course not!? Unless I actually try polluting my lungs, mouth, and numerous other places, I can never understand how stupid it is!    ::)  I guess I should go start huffing paint thinner and inhaling car exhaust so that I fully understand that.   :P

Quote
and before any wise ass even thinks about it don't bother using the 'I don't need to put my hand in the fire to know i'll get burned' phrase, my mum has really pissed me off with that over the years.

Your mum is a wise woman.? Tell her I said so.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Ignatius on September 05, 2004, 10:24:03 PM


I've been half a smoker for the past 10 years. I say half because I have never smoked that much. Maybe 2 or 3 a day but increased the dose to 15 everytime I would go out. Now it's time to put it to an end. I'm quitting for the first time. I've never tried this before so I sure don't know how hard this is gonna be. So far, I've gone " smoke free" since wednesday. I know it's nothing, but hey, I managed to overcome the addiction over the weekend!

If any of you out there have taken the same road, let me know and we'll both rely on each other. Any suggestions on what's the best treatment/program out there to quit???



Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Hammy on September 06, 2004, 04:06:42 AM
my other scientific fact about beer making a cigarette taste better and vice-versa is a fact though

Really?? In what encyclopedia can I find this 'fact'?? ?:P

Quote
A friend of mine said he would rather die at 50 and smoke the rest of his life than never smoke again and die at 80.

That just goes to show how much you smokers don't get it.? Dying is the LEAST of your worries.? You will be LUCKY if all smoking does is kill you.

Ask your happy ass friend if he'll be just as content at age 50 when he's breathing through a hole in his throat because he had cancerous tumors removed.? Or ask him if he'll be happy at age 50 when he has to sleep hooked up to a respiration machine because portions of his lungs had to be removed.? Or take the case of a guy I once knew: at the age of 24, he had to have his gums removed due to cancer from smoking.? Yes, you read that right, 24 years old, having his gums removed.? And how about my former next door neighbor: a single mother of four, dead at the age of 48 due to lung cancer.? And guess what, it didn't kill her quickly.? She had to suffer through an agonizing 18 months of chemotherapy first.? She left four children behind with no parents because she "enjoyed" smoking.

So go ahead, fella.? "Enjoy" smoking.? Because it feasibly won't just kill you, it'll kill you slowly and excrutiatingly painfully.? And we'll see if you're singing that "happy" tune when your hair is falling out and your skin is turning green while you're undergoing chemotherapy treatment.

Quote
you don't get the enjoyment we do so you cannot see things our way

I'm glad you said that, because it provides a perfect avenue for refutation....

Smokers like you can't see things our way because your "enjoyment" of smoking clouds your judgment just as much as filthy cigarette smoke clouds a room.? As long as you're enjoying it, you'll keep justifying a smoker's alleged "right" to pollute the environment of a non-smoker.? And because you'll undoubtedly ignore all of what I just told you, you won't ever understand the true enjoyment of breathing clean air and having healthy lungs.

Quote
I've always said unless you try something or experience something you can never trully understand it.

Nooooo, of course not!? Unless I actually try polluting my lungs, mouth, and numerous other places, I can never understand how stupid it is!? ? ::)? I guess I should go start huffing paint thinner and inhaling car exhaust so that I fully understand that.? ?:P

Quote
and before any wise ass even thinks about it don't bother using the 'I don't need to put my hand in the fire to know i'll get burned' phrase, my mum has really pissed me off with that over the years.

Your mum is a wise woman.? Tell her I said so.
My ma smiled, happy someone supports her anti-smoking cause :P? I have told her i will quit since i am scared of dying (see the Fear Thread) and i start university in a week and money is going to be real tight so some things will have to go.? So today i think she said she'll get me some nicotine patches or gum or something so hopefully i can quit and when i come back to the board at Christmas i'll be a changed man.? That 24 year old thing really freaked me out, i am 18 and probably a bit naive and also thought smoking never really catches up with you until at least 30....looks like i was wrong....just out of interest how much was your mate smoking a day and from what age i mean if he'd been smoking 100 a day from age 12 then i could understand it.? On a side note i would rather die painfully over 18 months than straight off because like i said in the fear thread there is nothing at all in this world i fear more than death.? Also since i did not smoke for the first 15 years of my life i have been on the smoker and non-smoker side of things so maybe if you think about it i am better placed to see both points of view :P? As for my 'Scientific Fact' i'll find it and prove it's a fact before i leave the board just so i can prove i am right ;D

Edit: Despite you thinking i would i did not ignore all you told me although i still believe ignorance is bliss  :smoking:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Mr Cowbell ? on September 06, 2004, 04:23:58 AM
To me in America, "The Land of the Free" in a business or any business I believe the owner of the business should be allowed to make it smoke free/allow smoking/ or have a smoking section. In NY you cant smoke in any of the pubs, why can't someone with their own bar be allowed to determine wether or not people can smoke. Maybe 90% of their clientel smoke. I think smoking in business shouldn't be dictated to, but be determined by the business owner. As I dont smoke cigarettes but I do enjoy them when I dont have a cigar with me at the pub.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: MadmanDan on September 06, 2004, 04:44:55 PM
All you non-smokers that complain all the time about smoke not being healthy and polluting the atmosphere,please do a little experiment:

Go into a garrage with 10 smokers and have them smoke non-stop for one hour,You will come out of there with smelly clothes,a bad taste in your mouth and teary eyes.

Then,drive into a garrage and leave the engine running for an hour.You come out of there in a plastic bag.




Oh and another thing: Why the fuck can't people smoke in open-air Football stadiums???? Or at least make a smoking section...


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: loretian on September 06, 2004, 09:48:42 PM
Dan, I don't get your argument at all.  I don't even necessarily disagree with you, but what's your point?  Most people don't sit around inhaling carbon monoxide all day, or go to bars where carbon monoxide is constantly floating around them.

I think CowBell has a great point, and I don't even think cigarette smoking is that bad as far as second hand smoke, but come on.... the car pollution argument is hardly relevant.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Dizzy on September 06, 2004, 09:56:50 PM
All you non-smokers that complain all the time about smoke not being healthy and polluting the atmosphere,please do a little experiment:

Go into a garrage with 10 smokers and have them smoke non-stop for one hour,You will come out of there with smelly clothes,a bad taste in your mouth and teary eyes.

Then,drive into a garrage and leave the engine running for an hour.You come out of there in a plastic bag.

As Loretian said, what's your point?? I'm not going to sit in a garage and inhale exhaust all day, so your "argument" is pointless.

What is also pointless is attempting to minimize or deemphasize the damage caused by smoking by comparing it to something "worse".? It's like saying "polluting the air this way is better than polluting the air that way."? The only thing it proves is that smoking is so indefensible that you must resort to frivolous comparisons in order to "defend" it.


Quote
Oh and another thing: Why the fuck can't people smoke in open-air Football stadiums????

Because the seats are close together and smokers are blowing the shit all over everyone around them.? I've been in those situations, and that's why I applaud stadiums for that rule, even though many smokers disregard it.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Oddy on September 06, 2004, 10:04:09 PM
is there anyone else that enjoys cigars?

i feel like im the only 18 year old that enjoys cigars, but has never ever had a puff of a cigarette........not one.......ever.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Mr Cowbell ? on September 06, 2004, 10:23:57 PM
They could still have a smoking section. Maybe not in the seats but have a room or an outside area where you can smoke and then go back to your seat. 

Nicotine is addictive, and if the gov't dont want people smoking in public and what not they should make nicotine gum and patches cheaper. What smoker is gonna pay the price of 2-3 cartons for a pack of gum.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Chris Misfit on September 07, 2004, 03:09:56 PM
Quote
Nicotine is addictive, and if the gov't dont want people smoking in public and what not they should make nicotine gum and patches cheaper. What smoker is gonna pay the price of 2-3 cartons for a pack of gum.

In the UK you can go to your doctor for these kind of things, it costs the normal price of a medication order, which is around ?6, that's not bad for around a months worth of patches.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Izzy on September 07, 2004, 03:16:18 PM
Dizzy, u post a good argument, u beat me to every point i would have made - always a pleasure to know down to earth people still exist.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Miz on September 07, 2004, 03:59:20 PM
Out of curiosity, how many of you smokers would continue to smoke if someone nearby asked you to stop?

Like I already said, I don't really see the massive problem with it.  As someone pointed out earlier, there are much bigger environmental problems which are probably more hazardous to your health, than smoking.

And it seems no-one actually read my post before, how many of you how are so anti-smoking, have ever been to a barbecue?  Did you politely ask you're hosts not to make so much smoke?


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: MadmanDan on September 07, 2004, 04:27:58 PM
Dan, I don't get your argument at all.? I don't even necessarily disagree with you, but what's your point?? Most people don't sit around inhaling carbon monoxide all day, or go to bars where carbon monoxide is constantly floating around them.

I think CowBell has a great point, and I don't even think cigarette smoking is that bad as far as second hand smoke, but come on.... the car pollution argument is hardly relevant.


What do you mean you don't sit around inhaling carbon monoxide all day?? Do you all live on top of a mountain?Millions of cars drive around you all day,burning tons of gasoline. What I wanted to point out is that people inhale much more car smoke than cigarette smoke.I had the same opinions when I was a non-smoker.

Doctors say that 5 or less cigarettes a day are not a hazard to your health.Can any non-smoker say that they inhale more that the equivalent of 5 cigs a day??


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Will on September 07, 2004, 04:46:11 PM
I am a smoker and I get irritated by the fact that in the ny/nj area we can't smoke anywhere anymore. I don't know if our friends overseas on this board share this problem but it's a heavy annoyance over here.

MS. is not too bad, but of course a pack of 20 cost like $2 around here...


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Hammy on September 07, 2004, 04:54:17 PM
Out of curiosity, how many of you smokers would continue to smoke if someone nearby asked you to stop?
That's very situation specific.  For instance if i was waiting for a bus or something and someone asked i would just move away from them rather than stop.  If in a pub chances are i would not i would either move or tell the person asking if they have a problem with it to move.  Obviously if i had sat next to/near them i would move but you often get people who come and sit near you and complain.  Well if they had a problem why the fuck did they sit near me in the first place? (and before anyone says i may not of been smoking then, whenever in a pub i have my cigs on the table with my lighter next to them to save me having to keep going into my pockets so it's clear i am a smoker).


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Will on September 07, 2004, 04:57:02 PM
Out of curiosity, how many of you smokers would continue to smoke if someone nearby asked you to stop?

I would throw my cig' away or just go away...


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: BabyJenks on September 07, 2004, 10:13:50 PM
If it's an establishment that allows smokers, then i'll smoke regardless of what others think. There are non-smoking aeas for a reason.  If someone else's smoke bothers me, then i just move, no need to bother them.  I've been a smoker and a non-smoker at different times.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Dizzy on September 07, 2004, 11:19:08 PM
Like I already said, I don't really see the massive problem with it.? As someone pointed out earlier, there are much bigger environmental problems which are probably more hazardous to your health, than smoking.

And as I said earlier, the things that are worse than smoking are entirely irrelevant.  This thread is about smoking.

As with most people who defend smoking, you must resort to comparing it to something "worse", because the fact is that smoking is completely indefensible.  There is not one good reason to smoke, nothing good can come from it, and there is absolutely nothing that can justify it.  So what do you do?  You point the finger at something else to attempt to lessen the severity of smoking.  Every single person who tries to justify or defend smoking ineluctably resorts to the same defense.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: matt88 on September 08, 2004, 02:22:28 AM
Weird...whenever i ask someone politely to put their cigarrette out or move away from me, i basically get told to fuck off or get a life ::)


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: SLCPUNK on September 08, 2004, 03:37:02 AM
Weird...whenever i ask someone politely to put their cigarrette out or move away from me, i basically get told to fuck off or get a life ::)


You'll have a life a lot longer than them more than likely anyway...


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Oddy on September 08, 2004, 03:43:03 AM
Weird...whenever i ask someone politely to put their cigarrette out or move away from me, i basically get told to fuck off or get a life ::)

simple solution,

buy the fattest cuban cigar possible.

when they say that, pull it out, light it, and just start blowing tonnes of smoke in their face/direction. their pissy little cigarettes are nothing compared to cigar smoke, it'll most likely annoy them alot. all my friends who smoke cigarettes absolutely hate cigars.

although it could back fire and they may ask you for a drag. :hihi:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Mr Cowbell ? on September 08, 2004, 03:55:04 AM
Weird...whenever i ask someone politely to put their cigarrette out or move away from me, i basically get told to fuck off or get a life ::)

simple solution,

buy the fattest cuban cigar possible.

when they say that, pull it out, light it, and just start blowing tonnes of smoke in their face/direction. their pissy little cigarettes are nothing compared to cigar smoke, it'll most likely annoy them alot. all my friends who smoke cigarettes absolutely hate cigars.

although it could back fire and they may ask you for a drag. :hihi:
That is so funny yet true, when I am at a casino and someone sits down next to be smoking a cig and blowing it in my face, many times I have lit up a cigar and just blew it back, and I dont smoke cubans I smoke cheap, nasty smelling ones.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: matt88 on September 08, 2004, 08:58:45 AM
Weird...whenever i ask someone politely to put their cigarrette out or move away from me, i basically get told to fuck off or get a life ::)

simple solution,

buy the fattest cuban cigar possible.

when they say that, pull it out, light it, and just start blowing tonnes of smoke in their face/direction. their pissy little cigarettes are nothing compared to cigar smoke, it'll most likely annoy them alot. all my friends who smoke cigarettes absolutely hate cigars.

although it could back fire and they may ask you for a drag. :hihi:

I may try that, yet if i smoke i usually choke straight away >:(

It sorta sucks being an asthmatic


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: kj_jive on September 08, 2004, 10:20:39 AM
Oh by the way...i was in California for a while.....

When i said that a little smoke never hurt anybody, obviously i know that it kills if you are a seriously heavy smoker....what i meant was just stop whining and be a little thick skinned.  i can't believe people will complain about a bit of smoke, with all the other crap in the air.  You risk your life driving to work everyday so please dont bother me with your complaints.

im gonna graciously excuse myself from this topic since it has absolutely nowhere to go...


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Wheres Izzy on September 08, 2004, 12:50:20 PM
And as I said earlier, the things that are worse than smoking are entirely irrelevant.? This thread is about smoking.

As with most people who defend smoking, you must resort to comparing it to something "worse", because the fact is that smoking is completely indefensible.? There is not one good reason to smoke, nothing good can come from it, and there is absolutely nothing that can justify it.? So what do you do?? You point the finger at something else to attempt to lessen the severity of smoking.? Every single person who tries to justify or defend smoking ineluctably resorts to the same defense.
Quote
I don't think bringing up stuff worse than smoking is irrelevant at all. Basically what I feel "smokers" have been saying to the "non-smokers" is that you guys are all up in arms about us risking your health and so outspoken about it but theres other shit just as bad if not worse that you don't seem to care as much about or at least are not as outspoken towards. Instead of calling it irrelevant by saying this thread is just about smoking it would have made more sense to ask why were adding to it.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Dizzy on September 08, 2004, 01:24:07 PM
don't think bringing up stuff worse than smoking is irrelevant at all.

Of course you don't.? You're a smoker.? Anything that can even remotely alleviate blame for your habit is going to be relevant to you.

Quote
Basically what I feel "smokers" have been saying to the "non-smokers" is that you guys are all up in arms about us risking your health and so outspoken about it but theres other

Yes yes, I know.? It's the classic (and only) smoker's defense (and I use that word loosely).? You can't find anything to justify smoking, so you must resort to pointing your finger at something else.? Typical and ineffectual.? You're not fooling anyone into believing that smoking is any less hazardous simply because there are other pollutants in the air.? And yes, all other pollutants are irrelevant to this discussion.? You want to start a thread about car exhaust, go ahead, I'll rant about that there.? But here, it's irrelevant.? You just want it to be relevant so one's filthy smoking habit looks less severe.

Hell, one might say there are worse things in the world than child abuse.  Your argument is the same principle as saying "There are worse things than child abuse, so we shouldn't complain about that."


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: SLCPUNK on September 08, 2004, 01:30:09 PM
It's not rocket science here.

If you are a smoker then be considerate of other people and don't blow that cancer causing smoke around those who don't.

How hard is that to figure out?

If you know it causes cancer and other diseases, why would you subject others to it? If you want to kill yourself that is your choice. Knowing the medical facts and still doing that to others would mean you are a total dick.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: noonespecial on September 08, 2004, 02:05:52 PM
If they asked politely, sure I'd put it out...but I've never had the experience anyone (non smoker) ask politely...you get what you give...:P


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Cornell on September 08, 2004, 02:12:10 PM
If you want to kill yourself that is your choice. Knowing the medical facts and still doing that to others would mean you are a total dick.

I have stayed out of this as I have friends that are smokers and non smokers and I can see both sides.  Maybe they are dicks for continuing to smoke, but so are the heavy drinkers that are ruining their livers, people who eat too much and become waaay over weight, etc...  There sure are a lot of dicks out there.  ;)


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Chris Misfit on September 08, 2004, 02:44:42 PM
Quote
It's not rocket science here.

If you are a smoker then be considerate of other people and don't blow that cancer causing smoke around those who don't.

How hard is that to figure out?

It's not. But it's you guys whinging that is keeping the thread alive. I've already stated, that we cannot smoke in public places, apart from the streets and pub, yet you guys are still moaning. What more do you want?

Answer my previous question that everyone ignored (best way to win an argument). Where are you going to breathe in enough passive smoke, for it to be a health risk?

How many of the non-smokers here, use tabacco in their joints?

Dizzys right, no good comes from smoking, but you'll all sit there with your fucking stupid "Oooh, I'm gonna get cancer" bullshit. What about me? Do you drive past me and think, "I'm pollouting this poor guy" Do you fuck. So let's stop playing the blame game.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: axls_locomotive on September 08, 2004, 03:02:42 PM
i think generally, most heavy drinkers dont impose anything on the person next to them...but smokers expose non smokers to at least 10 known carcinogens without their consent...so you cant really compare smokers and drinkers

and i fully agree with dizzy...


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: loretian on September 08, 2004, 03:41:11 PM
How many of the non-smokers here, use tabacco in their joints?

I tried once.? It ruined the joint.?


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Chris Misfit on September 08, 2004, 04:12:41 PM
So you smoke dope, but complain about the smell of cigs? This thread is bollocks.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Wheres Izzy on September 08, 2004, 04:49:33 PM
don't think bringing up stuff worse than smoking is irrelevant at all.

Of course you don't.? You're a smoker.? Anything that can even remotely alleviate blame for your habit is going to be relevant to you.

Quote
Basically what I feel "smokers" have been saying to the "non-smokers" is that you guys are all up in arms about us risking your health and so outspoken about it but theres other

Yes yes, I know.? It's the classic (and only) smoker's defense (and I use that word loosely).? You can't find anything to justify smoking, so you must resort to pointing your finger at something else.? Typical and ineffectual.? You're not fooling anyone into believing that smoking is any less hazardous simply because there are other pollutants in the air.? And yes, all other pollutants are irrelevant to this discussion.? You want to start a thread about car exhaust, go ahead, I'll rant about that there.? But here, it's irrelevant.? You just want it to be relevant so one's filthy smoking habit looks less severe.

Hell, one might say there are worse things in the world than child abuse.? Your argument is the same principle as saying "There are worse things than child abuse, so we shouldn't complain about that."

you totally missed what I meant by all means. I am not saying nonsmokers don't have a right to complain about smoking nor do I feel I have to make up excuses to defend smoking. I can justify smoking easily for myself-I enjoy it. And ya know what if I wasn't a smoker I would probably hate smoke being around me so I am not trying to alleviate anything. Look people who hate smoking have made it harder for us to smoke in alot of places-good for you. Now focus that energy to other stuff you seem to be ignoring that is just as harmful.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Mr Cowbell ? on September 09, 2004, 12:36:24 AM
People smoke to get Nicotene, which is a drug that relaxes them and thats what they get from it .


Just like a drunk gets alcohol, which makes them forget their problems and be happy.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: loretian on September 09, 2004, 09:45:31 AM
So you smoke dope, but complain about the smell of cigs? This thread is bollocks.


Haha, yep.? Well, generally speaking, when I smoke dope, I'm around people who are also smoking dope, or at least OK with it.? It's not like I go to a bar with a bong or anything....

The smell of cigarettes doesn't bother me that much, I mean, I've never asked anyone to stop or quit, I just deal with it.? Unlike dope though, tobacco makes my clothes stink.? I've never had the smell of pot stay on me longer than 10 or 15 minutes.? And anyway, I only need a hit or two to get high, so if I did smoke it at a bar, it'd bother people for about 30 seconds, then they wouldn't smell it again for four hours.

And Chris, YOU'RE BOLLOCKS.   : ok:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Chris Misfit on September 09, 2004, 11:31:01 AM
Quote
I've never had the smell of pot stay on me longer than 10 or 15 minutes.

That's what I'd say about cigs, if I was an idiot (No offence). I don't smoke dope, and I dunno what kind of stuff you smoke (seems to be different in each country) but I can tell you all my friends smoke it, and you can smell it off them, I smell it off myself after sitting with them. Perhaps the reason you can't smell it is, because you're used to the smell, as I cannot smell tabacco off myself, but I'm sure I reek of it.

Anyway, were are the prats that were complaining that they were gonna die from passive smoking? Seems funny they've all disappeared without answering my question. 4 pages of them moaning like old ladies, and when someone puts a good point across, they back off.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: loretian on September 09, 2004, 11:36:49 AM
That's what I'd say about cigs, if I was an idiot (No offence). I don't smoke dope, and I dunno what kind of stuff you smoke (seems to be different in each country) but I can tell you all my friends smoke it, and you can smell it off them, I smell it off myself after sitting with them. Perhaps the reason you can't smell it is, because you're used to the smell, as I cannot smell tabacco off myself, but I'm sure I reek of it.

That might be the case with me, but I doubt it.   If I actually smelt like pot smoke for very long after I smoked it, I would be constantly getting into deep shit with various people.  Either that, or noone knows what pot smells like.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Dizzy on September 09, 2004, 06:18:12 PM
People smoke to get Nicotene, which is a drug that relaxes them and thats what they get from it .

Incorrect.? Nicotine is a stimulant, hence it cannot "relax" the user.? The reason smokers feel "relaxed" after smoking is because their craving (which makes them feel "edgy") has been satiated, thus making them feel more relaxed than before they smoked.? But Nicotine cannot and does not transform anyone into a more relaxed person.? No stimulant can, and that's a medical fact.

Quote
Just like a drunk gets alcohol, which makes them forget their problems and be happy.

Even if Nicotine could relax the user, it wouldn't be the same thing as using a mind-altering substance (such as copious amounts of alcohol) which makes them forget the world around them.


Seems funny they've all disappeared without answering my question. 4 pages of them moaning like old ladies, and when someone puts a good point across, they back off.

Misfit, I'm not sure if I am one of the "prats" to whom you're referring.? But for the record, I don't smoke dope, nor do I drink alcoholic or caffeinated beverages for that matter.? Your implication is correct: people who complain about cigarettes and then smoke dope are hypocrites.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: loretian on September 09, 2004, 08:47:37 PM
Your implication is correct: people who complain about cigarettes and then smoke dope are hypocrites.

Why is that?? The situations under which a person normally smokes dope are completely different.? Unless you live in in one of a few cities in the world that allow it, you're not going to go to a bar and find people smoking dope.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: matt88 on September 10, 2004, 03:10:56 AM
So you smoke dope, but complain about the smell of cigs? This thread is bollocks.


Haha, yep.? Well, generally speaking, when I smoke dope, I'm around people who are also smoking dope, or at least OK with it.? It's not like I go to a bar with a bong or anything....

The smell of cigarettes doesn't bother me that much, I mean, I've never asked anyone to stop or quit, I just deal with it.? Unlike dope though, tobacco makes my clothes stink.? I've never had the smell of pot stay on me longer than 10 or 15 minutes.? And anyway, I only need a hit or two to get high, so if I did smoke it at a bar, it'd bother people for about 30 seconds, then they wouldn't smell it again for four hours.

And Chris, YOU'RE BOLLOCKS.? ?: ok:

You fuckin serious loretian...pot doesnt make ur clothes stink? I think ur just too used to the smell and u think it's just the deoderant on u that smells normal :hihi:

Pot fucking stays on u for AGES. I have to bomb my room with insence and deoderant the second i get home to keep the smell away....otherwise the old man will find out and then POW!!


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: loretian on September 10, 2004, 10:18:26 AM
You fuckin serious loretian...pot doesnt make ur clothes stink? I think ur just too used to the smell and u think it's just the deoderant on u that smells normal :hihi:

Pot fucking stays on u for AGES. I have to bomb my room with insence and deoderant the second i get home to keep the smell away....otherwise the old man will find out and then POW!!

Haha, well, I fully acknowledge that I could be totally wrong in this, but I really don't think the smell stays for me.? ? Pretty much all my friends who smoke too agree.? It just doesn't stay on you.? I mean, I used go downstairs to the bathroom during work and smoke a few pinchies, then come up and meet with clients 20 minutes later.? I've never had anyone mention anything or call me on it.? I know my mom knows what it smells like, and I've visited my parents a few times stoned (again, this was awhile ago, I don't do this kind of thing anymore) and she never said anything or gave any indication she thought she could smell it.

At one of my old places I lived at, I had a "bong room", and the bong water created a constant smell, but that was it.

For the most part, I am very efficient about my pot smoking, too.  Maybe this is part of it.  I usually only take a couple of hits at the most, often just one, and I hold them in long enough that there's almost no smoke being exhaled.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Chris Misfit on September 10, 2004, 10:23:46 AM
Quote
Misfit, I'm not sure if I am one of the "prats" to whom you're referring.  But for the record, I don't smoke dope, nor do I drink alcoholic or caffeinated beverages for that matter.  Your implication is correct: people who complain about cigarettes and then smoke dope are hypocrites.

Yes, but my question is: With practically everywhere being non-smoking now, where do non-smokers feel they are going to inhale enough passive smoke, for it to be hazardous to their health?

Maybe I'm blinded by the fact that I smoke. But I don't really see how you guys can complain when you're obviously not around smokers in public.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: axls_locomotive on September 10, 2004, 02:43:42 PM
Quote
Misfit, I'm not sure if I am one of the "prats" to whom you're referring.  But for the record, I don't smoke dope, nor do I drink alcoholic or caffeinated beverages for that matter.  Your implication is correct: people who complain about cigarettes and then smoke dope are hypocrites.

Yes, but my question is: With practically everywhere being non-smoking now, where do non-smokers feel they are going to inhale enough passive smoke, for it to be hazardous to their health?

Maybe I'm blinded by the fact that I smoke. But I don't really see how you guys can complain when you're obviously not around smokers in public.

i like a challenge so ill give you an answer
there have been numerous studies that have identified effects of passive smoking in children, the range of conditions include pneumonia, bronchitis and asthma...now since children have been exposed to these risks for only a few years, wouldnt you also come to a basic conclusion that passive smoking can affect people in a fairly short space of time...

now cigarettes include about 10 known carcinogens, some included in this list below
Arsenic ? a poison used in insecticides.
Ammonia ? a chemical used in cleaning solutions.
Acetone ? a solvent used in nail varnish remover.
Benzene ? a solvent used in the manufacture of fuel.
Cadmium ? a poisonous metal found in batteries.
Eydelmoarfhde ? embalming fluid.
Formaldehyde ? a chemical used to preserve dead bodies.
Hydrogen cyanide ? a lethal gas.
Nutbae ? used in camping gas and lighter fuel.
Tecanoe ? used in paint stripper.
Ricnesa ? found in ant poison.

now if you want to be exposed to these chemicals, fair enough, i dont give a shit...but when they affect me or children then that is a different matter


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Mr Cowbell ? on September 10, 2004, 03:28:03 PM
Quote
Misfit, I'm not sure if I am one of the "prats" to whom you're referring.? But for the record, I don't smoke dope, nor do I drink alcoholic or caffeinated beverages for that matter.? Your implication is correct: people who complain about cigarettes and then smoke dope are hypocrites.

Yes, but my question is: With practically everywhere being non-smoking now, where do non-smokers feel they are going to inhale enough passive smoke, for it to be hazardous to their health?

Maybe I'm blinded by the fact that I smoke. But I don't really see how you guys can complain when you're obviously not around smokers in public.

i like a challenge so ill give you an answer
there have been numerous studies that have identified effects of passive smoking in children, the range of conditions include pneumonia, bronchitis and asthma...now since children have been exposed to these risks for only a few years, wouldnt you also come to a basic conclusion that passive smoking can affect people in a fairly short space of time...

now cigarettes include about 10 known carcinogens, some included in this list below
Arsenic ? a poison used in insecticides.
Ammonia ? a chemical used in cleaning solutions.
Acetone ? a solvent used in nail varnish remover.
Benzene ? a solvent used in the manufacture of fuel.
Cadmium ? a poisonous metal found in batteries.
Eydelmoarfhde ? embalming fluid.
Formaldehyde ? a chemical used to preserve dead bodies.
Hydrogen cyanide ? a lethal gas.
Nutbae ? used in camping gas and lighter fuel.
Tecanoe ? used in paint stripper.
Ricnesa ? found in ant poison.

now if you want to be exposed to these chemicals, fair enough, i dont give a shit...but when they affect me or children then that is a different matter
Would it be better if they started making 100% natural tobacco cigarrettes only?


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Dizzy on September 10, 2004, 03:47:05 PM

Yes, but my question is: With practically everywhere being non-smoking now, where do non-smokers feel they are going to inhale enough passive smoke, for it to be hazardous to their health?

Well, I can't speak for your country, but there are public places in the U.S. which are not yet entirely smoke-free.  And actually, my biggest problem is with smoke-free areas in which people smoke anyway, e.g. concert venues.  Couple that with my earlier complaint of someone blowing smoke right in my face, which is rude regardless of whether it's a smoke-friendly mileau.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Izzy on September 10, 2004, 04:11:53 PM

Arsenic ? a poison used in insecticides.
Ammonia ? a chemical used in cleaning solutions.
Acetone ? a solvent used in nail varnish remover.
Benzene ? a solvent used in the manufacture of fuel.
Cadmium ? a poisonous metal found in batteries.
Eydelmoarfhde ? embalming fluid.
Formaldehyde ? a chemical used to preserve dead bodies.
Hydrogen cyanide ? a lethal gas.
Nutbae ? used in camping gas and lighter fuel.
Tecanoe ? used in paint stripper.
Ricnesa ? found in ant poison.


Paying to inhale that...surely that can only be described as madness? Surely no one would go and inhale these things on their own...so why do they do it with a cigg?


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Hammy on September 10, 2004, 07:17:11 PM

Yes, but my question is: With practically everywhere being non-smoking now, where do non-smokers feel they are going to inhale enough passive smoke, for it to be hazardous to their health?

Well, I can't speak for your country, but there are public places in the U.S. which are not yet entirely smoke-free.? And actually, my biggest problem is with smoke-free areas in which people smoke anyway, e.g. concert venues.? Couple that with my earlier complaint of someone blowing smoke right in my face, which is rude regardless of whether it's a smoke-friendly mileau.

How many of these bands that you go and see do actual members smoke?  If you met Slash backstage would you ask him to put his cigarette out while you spoke to him?  When the band do what do you expect of the fans it's alright for Slash but not his fans?


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Dizzy on September 10, 2004, 09:57:09 PM
How many of these bands that you go and see do actual members smoke?? If you met Slash backstage would you ask him to put his cigarette out while you spoke to him?? When the band do what do you expect of the fans it's alright for Slash but not his fans?

I'm mystified as to where you're getting this.? Did I ever state or even imply that it was okay for Slash to blow smoke in my face or smoke in a non-smoking area?? Those are/were my two general complaints about smokers.  Perhaps you should reread my posts so you understand them, because you obviously didn't the first time.

I met Steven Adler, and he smokes.? But he didn't blow it in my face and he didn't smoke in a non-smoking area.


If they asked politely, sure I'd put it out...but I've never had the experience anyone (non smoker) ask politely...you get what you give...:P

Not to defend a non-smoker's impolite inquiry, but chances are if someone has to ask you to put a cigarette out, you were rudely blowing it all over their person to begin with.? On that basis, I can understand (even if I don't condone) why they weren't necessarily "polite" when they asked you to put it out.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: The New Fiona Apple on September 11, 2004, 12:36:52 AM
Ok, smoking just sucks...Period! I do not understand why people would put their health in danger for something as stupid as it.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Chris Misfit on September 11, 2004, 05:18:12 PM
Quote
now if you want to be exposed to these chemicals, fair enough, i dont give a shit...but when they affect me or children then that is a different matter

Yeah. But where are you, personally exposed to amounts of passive smoke, that this would effect your health?

Obviously there's problems with parents smoking in the presence of their child. I don't know how we can eliminate that problem.





Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: axls_locomotive on September 12, 2004, 04:02:50 PM
Quote
now if you want to be exposed to these chemicals, fair enough, i dont give a shit...but when they affect me or children then that is a different matter

Yeah. But where are you, personally exposed to amounts of passive smoke, that this would effect your health?

Obviously there's problems with parents smoking in the presence of their child. I don't know how we can eliminate that problem.


i pretty much avoid situations where there is any smokers...since i was a child my throat locks up when i am around cigarette smoke and it makes it very difficult to breathe...

im exposed to smokers every day on the supposed non-smoking bus which accumulates to about an hour day...and just the other day sitting at the bus station there were 8 people, astonishly all women, smoking beside me...and that doesnt include every time you walk past someone who is smoking...i can smell a smoker from anywhere between 20 and 60 yards away, maybe you dont appreciate how far smoke can carry?...although im not complaining about people smoking outside but the exposure is there nonetheless

oh btw im probably what you would call an environmentalist, so i dont have a car, and the bus i travel on uses unleaded fuel


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Mr Cowbell ? on September 22, 2004, 07:59:28 AM
I hate to be one to bring back a dieing thread but....

I just started a new job this week. 3rd shift Manufacturing Job. Hard to come by. First night I show up I learn that it is a "smoking plant" and that smoking is allowed anywhere in the plant at any time. I would say 90% of the people there were either smoking cigarrettes or cigars. I was in utter shocked that a place like this even exsist to this day? People are throwing there butts all over and people will throw there lit cigarrettes out around you and all you can do is taste and smell the smoke.

I feel like I was in the twi-light zone or back in the 1950's to see a whole production plant (a very good sized one at that) allowing smoking anytime anywhere in their plant. You would think OSHA wouldnt allow that.

I've never really been bothered by smokers before since my friends smoke and there is smoke at all the bars I go to, but working for 8 hours and smelling it and breathing it all night really is making me rethink and hate smokers.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Danny on September 22, 2004, 09:56:16 AM
I've never heard of a single death certificate being filled out with the cause of death being "second-hand smoke".  Never.  To put it in the most simple terms possible, the smoker is inhaling all the bad stuff and exhaling all the not-bad stuff.

Also, if smoking is so bad, why don't the rabid non-smokers work instead to just ban cigarettes completely?  I don't get it.  If they were illegal, problem solved, right?


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Danny on September 22, 2004, 10:11:34 AM
I've got a little more, for y'all.  This is fact:

Upon looking at all 50 states, the states with the 10 highest smoking rates had an average smoking rate of 27%.  The states with the 10 lowest smoking rates had an average smoking rate of 19%. The rate of asthma in the 10 lowest smoking states was 6.6%. The rate of asthma in the 10 highest smoking states was 6.3%.


Go figure.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: axls_locomotive on September 22, 2004, 06:14:23 PM
I've never heard of a single death certificate being filled out with the cause of death being "second-hand smoke".  Never.  To put it in the most simple terms possible, the smoker is inhaling all the bad stuff and exhaling all the not-bad stuff.

no but ive seen plenty cases for cancer in non-smoking adults, go figure


Also, if smoking is so bad, why don't the rabid non-smokers work instead to just ban cigarettes completely?  I don't get it.  If they were illegal, problem solved, right?

you are naive in thinking this way...there are millions of people who all have a variety of different opinions on what should be done, most realise that banning smoking infringes on your right to smoke, but many dont like being subjected to smoke fumes day in day out...thats why the majority want to limit smoking to areas where it doesnt affect non smokers...it means no infringment of smokers rights and no infringement on non smokers rights


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Danny on September 22, 2004, 06:27:59 PM
Quote
no but ive seen plenty cases for cancer in non-smoking adults, go figure

LUNG cancer?  I don't think so.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: axls_locomotive on September 22, 2004, 06:45:01 PM

LUNG cancer?  I don't think so.

...200-300 people die every year in the UK because of lung cancer caused by passive smoking...

take a good read
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/passive.html


Title: Re: smokers vs. non-smokers
Post by: Dizzy on September 22, 2004, 06:51:47 PM
I've never heard of a single death certificate being filled out with the cause of death being "second-hand smoke".? Never.?

That's because you have no earthly idea what you're talking about. ?People don't die from "secondhand" smoke. ?Their health can be harmed by secondhand smoke, causing them to come down with various illnesses and conditions. ?Since you're a fan of putting things in simple terms, I'll put this in simple terms for you; Secondhand smoke doesn't kill people. ?It gives them illnesses which can.

Quote
To put it in the most simple terms possible, the smoker is inhaling all the bad stuff and exhaling all the not-bad stuff.

Do you even know what secondhand smoke is? ?It isn't the smoke that smokers are exhaling.

Once again, I'll put it in the simplest terms so even you can understand....

The burning tip of a cigarette emits secondhand smoke. ?It is damaging to anyone around it, even more damaging than the smoke the smoker is inhaling, because it is not filtered. ?That's an indisputable, proven fact, whether you like it or not.

Quote
? If they were illegal, problem solved, right?

Wrong. ?Outlawing is not going to make smoking disappear. ?There are no easy solutions to any problem of this magnitude. ?Besides, the state governments makes a fortune off cigarette tax, so they're never going to outlaw it, so lobbying for it would be an exercise in futility from the onset.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Mr Cowbell ? on September 22, 2004, 07:14:55 PM
Quote
no but ive seen plenty cases for cancer in non-smoking adults, go figure

LUNG cancer?? I don't think so.

Not true in recent years Airline stewardess who never spoke sued (and won) settlementss against the BIg Tobacco companies. Even though they never smoked, the passengers on the planes back in the day did and this caused this lung cancer.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: SLCPUNK on September 24, 2004, 02:57:10 AM
Quote
no but ive seen plenty cases for cancer in non-smoking adults, go figure

LUNG cancer?? I don't think so.

Maybe you could post a link to a search engine to back up your claim...... ::)


 :hihi:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: SLCPUNK on September 24, 2004, 03:01:42 AM
I've got a little more, for y'all.? This is fact:

Upon looking at all 50 states, the states with the 10 highest smoking rates had an average smoking rate of 27%.? The states with the 10 lowest smoking rates had an average smoking rate of 19%. The rate of asthma in the 10 lowest smoking states was 6.6%. The rate of asthma in the 10 highest smoking states was 6.3%.


Go figure.

links.....?

You can't corelate asthma entirely with smoking. Asthma usually has more to do with quality of air in the community....pollution, emissions, etc etc.

You probably just made that up anyway.....


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: RichardNixon on March 25, 2006, 01:18:14 AM
I have never been a smoker, just once and a while. But I've started it up again for the last six weeks or so, don't know why really. I have no idea why I smoke.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: journey on March 25, 2006, 01:55:55 AM
I have never been a smoker, just once and a while. But I've started it up again for the last six weeks or so, don't know why really. I have no idea why I smoke.

You should quit now while you're young.



Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: SLCPUNK on March 25, 2006, 02:41:37 AM
I have never been a smoker, just once and a while. But I've started it up again for the last six weeks or so, don't know why really. I have no idea why I smoke.

I thought you were a runner?

What are you doing smoking that crap?


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: axelle rose on March 25, 2006, 02:52:28 AM
I smoke , but my husband doesn't and there for I go outside so he and my kids don't have to sit in my smoke . I have tryed many many times to quit , I even been very sick because of it. But its just not working. I can't quit. If anyone knows a good way to stop please tell my. I smoke for about 12 years now .


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: SLCPUNK on March 25, 2006, 03:19:01 AM
I smoke , but my husband doesn't and there for I go outside so he and my kids don't have to sit in my smoke . I have tryed many many times to quit , I even been very sick because of it. But its just not working. I can't quit. If anyone knows a good way to stop please tell my. I smoke for about 12 years now .

Have you tried the gum or the patch?

My dad quit using the gum and smoked for well over 30 yrs.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: MR W,AXL ROSE on March 25, 2006, 03:19:17 AM
U smokers should be hung from the nearest lamp-post.

Kill urself by all means - but its outrageous u can get away with killing the rest of us through passive smoking, it makes me livid - to say smokers are selfish is not nearly going far enough

rant over.



ahmen.said to perfection ?: ok:

take note smokers "were onto you" :hihi: "your goin dowwwnnnnnnnnn"


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: axelle rose on March 25, 2006, 03:24:12 AM
I smoke , but my husband doesn't and there for I go outside so he and my kids don't have to sit in my smoke . I have tryed many many times to quit , I even been very sick because of it. But its just not working. I can't quit. If anyone knows a good way to stop please tell my. I smoke for about 12 years now .

Have you tried the gum or the patch?

My dad quit using the gum and smoked for well over 30 yrs.

Yes I did , I eat the gum and smoke the same time  :no: and the patches don't work neither.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: RichardNixon on March 25, 2006, 04:05:22 AM
I have never been a smoker, just once and a while. But I've started it up again for the last six weeks or so, don't know why really. I have no idea why I smoke.

I thought you were a runner?

What are you doing smoking that crap?

Yup, just got back from a 12 mile run! :peace:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Hammy on March 25, 2006, 05:55:26 AM
I smoke , but my husband doesn't and there for I go outside so he and my kids don't have to sit in my smoke . I have tryed many many times to quit , I even been very sick because of it. But its just not working. I can't quit. If anyone knows a good way to stop please tell my. I smoke for about 12 years now .

Have you tried the gum or the patch?

My dad quit using the gum and smoked for well over 30 yrs.

Yes I did , I eat the gum and smoke the same time? :no: and the patches don't work neither.
I've quit stopped 'bout 3 months since.  I had a goal though, i wanted to because i am really into health and fitness stuff now and i am entering a course and college so i had to quit so i could be in the shape need to pursue my career.

With a lot of these things it's a mental thing, mind over matter and all that.  Just think about what it's doing to your body, to your health, then think about how much you care about your husband and kids and how either of you would feel without the other, a loving family should be inspiration enough, is it really worth the risk?

Think about that everytime you smoke and it should put you off and make you feel guilty,  it worked with me in the sense that i thought everytime i smoked i was wrecking my career prospects.......


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Sterlingdog on March 25, 2006, 10:00:45 AM
I don't smoke, but I never used to complain about those that did.

Then I had an Aunt who smoked heavily.  She got cancer and died, and so did her husband - who hadn't smoked for over 10 years.  That made me more disapproving of smoking, but I used to figure people had the right to kill themselves, etc.

Then I had a child.  And even though I live in California where smoking is banned almost everywhere, we still run into people smoking - usually right outside the entrance to a store.  And when I see my child breathing in that smoke, even for a second, it infuriates me.  Now I get it.  Why should my child have that stuff in her lungs?  I've started telling her that smoking is bad, and we don't let people who smoke be around us.  And I tell her right in front of the smokers that are puffing away right outside the store entrance.  I tell her to hold her breath while we hurry past.  I'm sure they think I'm a bitch, but I don't care.  They deserve the health problems they are going to get. 

And when I see a mother smoking in front of her kids, or perhaps worse, when she's pregnant, I want to ask her what kind of mother she is.  To harm your own children that way is inexcusable. 


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Evolution on March 25, 2006, 10:35:01 AM
How do you think the public smoking ban will pan out?

Pub doors are going to be crowded in a few weeks with people having a smoke, inside with smell probably worse of sweaty old bastards and stale beer  :hihi:

That said I think it's a very good thing.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: JAC185 on March 25, 2006, 11:11:05 AM
Maybe to decide who gets what they want we should all have a long distance race, non-smokers vs smokers


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Axls Locomotive on March 25, 2006, 03:04:16 PM
I don't smoke, but I never used to complain about those that did.

Then I had an Aunt who smoked heavily.  She got cancer and died, and so did her husband - who hadn't smoked for over 10 years.  That made me more disapproving of smoking, but I used to figure people had the right to kill themselves, etc.

Then I had a child.  And even though I live in California where smoking is banned almost everywhere, we still run into people smoking - usually right outside the entrance to a store.  And when I see my child breathing in that smoke, even for a second, it infuriates me.  Now I get it.  Why should my child have that stuff in her lungs?  I've started telling her that smoking is bad, and we don't let people who smoke be around us.  And I tell her right in front of the smokers that are puffing away right outside the store entrance.  I tell her to hold her breath while we hurry past.  I'm sure they think I'm a bitch, but I don't care.  They deserve the health problems they are going to get. 

And when I see a mother smoking in front of her kids, or perhaps worse, when she's pregnant, I want to ask her what kind of mother she is.  To harm your own children that way is inexcusable. 

i think im in lurrrve :hihi: ...i agree with everything you say :)

How do you think the public smoking ban will pan out?

Pub doors are going to be crowded in a few weeks with people having a smoke, inside with smell probably worse of sweaty old bastards and stale beer  :hihi:

That said I think it's a very good thing.

most people probably dont know about it evo!

smoking ban in scotland starts tomorrow in all enclosed spaces...at last common sense has endured

if people leave beer on the table while they go outside then it wont be there for long hahaha...so it looks like the smokers will still smoke and drink stale beer...but drinkers that dont smoke will drink more...healthy times ahead...hahaha




Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Sparksry on March 25, 2006, 06:20:08 PM
I dont have a problem with smokers but im not a smoker .... i dont have a problem as long as there not asses and do it inside near there kids or right beside someone else ..... now thats retarded but ya thats my opinion  : ok:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: ClintroN on March 25, 2006, 07:34:36 PM
im a smoker but always distant myself from non smokers!!

yes :yes:....i do have respect!!!



Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Evolution on March 25, 2006, 07:54:59 PM
if people leave beer on the table while they go outside then it wont be there for long hahaha


 :hihi: So fucking true.


The smoke hanging over the door however will mean more underagers can sneak in and increase revenue for pubs.  : ok:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: RichardNixon on March 25, 2006, 11:48:57 PM
I just saw the new film "Thank You For Smoking" and it was great.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Kaybee on March 26, 2006, 12:23:50 AM
I've never even had a puff of a cigarette in my life... just not interested. I used to date this guy that was a smoker and it was like kissing an ashtray  :no:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: WARose on March 26, 2006, 07:30:04 AM
i still don`t get why people start smoking....it`s pretty useless imo. you stink and your lung gets black by the tar....that`s it...

girls who smoke are the most unerotic matter anyway.....

i use to smoke weed. it`s able to fuck people up, but it`s cool in moderation and you at least have a benefit from smoking it :peace:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: SuperMike on March 26, 2006, 06:51:10 PM
I'm a non-smoker which I find surprising because most of my family are smokers. The thought of starting to smoke just never crossed my mind. But I don't judge people for smoking though.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: jimmythegent on March 27, 2006, 05:50:10 AM
im a smoker - have been for about 10-12 yrs but Im about ready to give it away. I smoke probably 2-3 lights a day, so by no means heavy, but I just dont like the fact that its unhealthy


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Sin Cut on March 27, 2006, 06:31:25 AM
nothing helps to clear stress as smoking. That's why I started, it's just hard to quit now.

And I still get stress and then I lite a smoke, better that than being on bad mood to everyone.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: NicoRourke on March 27, 2006, 07:01:05 AM
I am a smoker and I get irritated by the fact that in the ny/nj area we can't smoke anywhere anymore. I don't know if our friends overseas on this board share this problem but it's a heavy annoyance over here. Any non-smokers feel free to post your annoyances with us, as trivial as I believe them all to be.

Here (Belgium), the law is getting more and more strict. Since 2006 It's forbidden to smoke at your work, except outside with the management's agreement. Same in more and more public places.

Anyway, I smoke (it's been 10 years) and god damn it I love that :yes:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: badapple81 on March 27, 2006, 07:22:53 AM
Here in Australia now (not sure in all States) it's illegal in pubs and clubs. They are allowed one section for smokers, which of course is usually the gambling area so they throw some money away along with their lungs!


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Backslash on March 27, 2006, 07:44:34 AM
As a non-smoker and activist for non-smoker rights (I'm allergic) I'm pleased that here in Newfoundland we've succeeded in outlawing smoking in all public enclosed areas, including restaurants, pubs, and bars.  There's further talk that bans will be placed on smoking in public areas such as sidewalks and around doors of businesses.  It's a good thing.   : ok:  Eventually, smoking may become criminalized here, while pot becomes decriminalized.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: noonespecial on March 27, 2006, 08:37:37 AM
So does that mean that one may be able to go around smoking joints but ciggies may be criminalized?  Wow I think I'm moving to your country!!!! ;D
I don't understand the difference other than the fact that mary jane has a nicer fragrance, but hey...whatever works LOL


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Danny Top Hat on March 27, 2006, 09:01:37 AM
I'd never take up cigarettes, but I do smoke a shit load of weed.  The health side of it really does bother me and I fully intend to stop at some point, but I don't see now as the time.  I'm going travelling after Uni, so maybe i'll call it quits then.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: AxlsMainMan on March 27, 2006, 06:50:54 PM
Export A Golds or Belmont Milds....

Now thats some good tobacco :hihi:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Markus Asraelius on March 27, 2006, 07:27:02 PM
My mom smokes and I can't stand to get near her room.

If us non-smokers don't want to be around smoke, then we don't have to be. It's nasty.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Goldie on March 30, 2006, 05:45:54 AM
I am a non-smoker. (Bill Hicks "My worst fear is becoming one of you" a whining non-smoker).
I think smokers are the coolest people on the planet.? :smoking: Every boyfriend I've ever had has been a smoker. Ever man I've ever found remotely attractive has been a smoker. I dig smokers. They are the last American Rebels.
However, my husband is currently a smoker who has been diagnosed with Berger's Disease. If he doesn't quit (and apparently he doesn't plan on it) he will lose fingers, toes, arms and/or legs. The shit you smokers go through just to be cool.? :smoking:
I'm glad for myself and my daughter that I quit while I was in college. I know its hard.
My blackened heart goes out to all you blackened lungs!? :love:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: WARose on March 30, 2006, 11:59:17 AM
I'd never take up cigarettes, but I do smoke a shit load of weed.  The health side of it really does bother me and I fully intend to stop at some point, but I don't see now as the time.  I'm going travelling after Uni, so maybe i'll call it quits then.

what do you mean by the health side?

the danger of cancer or the mental fuck up?


one question to all the smokers here: why did you start smoking? i don`t really get how one could start smoking except for peer pressure, if you`re not the self confident kind of person......


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Mama Kin on April 12, 2006, 04:03:21 AM
I smoke, a lot. A pack a day and I'd smoke more if they weren't so damn expensive.

Cigarettes are the only product that you never hear the other side. They run those "Truth" commericals all day long, and to be fair, they're full of shit.

Bill Maher once made an excellent point about smoking, "If ketchup had 1/20th of the carcinigens of a cigarette, they'd rip if off the shelves tomorrow." So anyone who tells you they pass legislation to prevent people from smoking, resticting where you can, high prices, more taxes, are full of shit. The government lives off the campaign contributions given to them by big tobacco companies.

Here in Canada, we have the nice pictures on our packs and you know what? No one gives a shit. No one looks at them, no one cares what they say, we make fun of them.

Quote
While smoking has been clearly identified as the cause of many diseases and other health problems, as described above, it has also been observed to reduce the incidence of some diseases (endometrial cancer, Parkinson's disease, ulcerative colitis, hypertension of pregnancy(4) and Alzheimer's disease(147,148)). This is known as a 'protective effect'.

There is evidence to suggest that smoking reduces the risk of cancer of the endometrium (membrane lining of the uterus) in post-menopausal women by an estimated 30% in current smokers.(149) This may be because of the effects of smoking on oestrogen levels. Smoking is known to affect other oestrogen related phenomena: for example, both a woman's age at menopause and her bone density after menopause are related to her oestrogen levels. The action of cigarette smoking is opposite to that of oestrogens in each instance: relative to other women, smokers have an earlier age at menopause and bones that are more brittle. The risk of endometrial cancer is substantially increased by the use of drugs containing oestrogen. Therefore it is not inconsistent that tobacco smoke could counter the effect of oestrogens and reduce the risk of endometrial cancer.(150)

However if some degree of protection from endometrial cancer is afforded by cigarette smoking, it fades to insignificance when compared to the numbers of lives lost through smoking. Some 30 times as many lives are lost due to smoking than saved through lowered incidence of endometrial cancer.(150) Researchers have acknowledged this: 'The present findings [about endometrial cancer] do not have direct public health importance since cigarettes, overall, have serious deleterious effects. However, if these results are confirmed, elucidation of the underlying mechanism whereby smoking reduces the risk would be of interest and might be useful in the development of strategies for preventing endometrial cancer.'(149)

It is estimated that the overall aetiological fraction of endometrial cancer prevented in ex- and current-smokers is -0.10. This means that for every 100 cases of endometrial cancer observed in a community where smoking occurs, if smoking were absent from this community, 10 more would occur.

Tobacco also appears to have a protective effect against Parkinson's disease and hypertension of pregnancy. The overall aetiological fractions for the effects of smoking are -0.35 for Parkinson's disease in men and -0.22 in women. In women, the aetiological fraction for hypertension of pregnancy is -0.07.

The effects of smoking on ulcerative colitis are unclear. In their review, English et al conclude that there is limited evidence that current smoking protects against ulcerative colitis and that there is also limited evidence that past smoking causes ulcerative colitis. The overall effect of ever smoking is that 8% of ulcerative colitis in men and 3% in women is caused by ever smoking.

Recent research indicates that smoking may also protect against the development of Alzheimer's disease in some measure. However, as with the other conditions listed above, tobacco use is not recommended as a prophylactic: 'Although the association is compatible with a protective effect of smoking for familial Alzheimer's disease, it has no relevance for prevention of Alzheimer's disease because of the adverse health effects of smoking.'(148)




Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Queen of Everything on April 12, 2006, 10:44:21 AM
I cannot judge smokers differently, I have been out with both and generally speaking... non-smokers are my pick!

Smokers smell bad, and they waste so much money!!


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: journey on April 12, 2006, 02:22:29 PM
im a smoker but always distant myself from non smokers!!

yes :yes:....i do have respect!!!



Thank you!

It would be nice if more people had that kind of respect.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: AxlsMainMan on April 16, 2006, 12:24:57 AM
I cannot judge smokers differently, I have been out with both and generally speaking... non-smokers are my pick!

Smokers smell bad, and they waste so much money!!

If someone wants to spent 10$ on a pack of smokes, who cares?

It's a free country as the ol' saying goes..


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Krispy Kreme on April 16, 2006, 12:28:19 AM
I am a smoker and I get irritated by the fact that in the ny/nj area we can't smoke anywhere anymore. I don't know if our friends overseas on this board share this problem but it's a heavy annoyance over here. Any non-smokers feel free to post your annoyances with us, as trivial as I believe them all to be.

How is second-hand cancer 'trivial'? Smokers DO NOT have the right to give non-smokers cancer or to pollute the air we breathe. If you want to kill yourself, do it in the privacy of your  own home.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Queen of Everything on April 16, 2006, 01:32:13 AM
If someone wants to spent 10$ on a pack of smokes, who cares?

It's a free country as the ol' saying goes..

True that!  Its just that if I had to chose between having a relationship with either... like, just say there was a person and he said would you rather me smoke or not?  I would say not!  There are so many more negatives to not smoking and the money they waste is just another one


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Xx Estranged xX on April 16, 2006, 11:04:23 AM
I am a smoker, but I also understand how non-smokers feel. I always ask if whoever I'm with would mind if I smoked, and if they say no I'll wait until I get a moment by myself or I'm home. And I won't ever smoke anywhere near my daughter.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: badapple81 on April 16, 2006, 11:08:39 AM
Those charming pictures are just making their way onto packets here!


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: sandman on April 16, 2006, 12:37:17 PM
i agree with Jack Burns - smoking is a sign of weakness.

and cheers to NJ for implementing the smoking ban - the bars down the shore will be so much more enjoyable!!

 :beer:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Danny Top Hat on April 16, 2006, 01:46:25 PM
I'd never take up cigarettes, but I do smoke a shit load of weed.? The health side of it really does bother me and I fully intend to stop at some point, but I don't see now as the time.? I'm going travelling after Uni, so maybe i'll call it quits then.

what do you mean by the health side?

the danger of cancer or the mental fuck up?

The cancer.? I smoke a lot of weed, so i'm sure I am living just as unhealthily as your average smoker.? That's why I want to stop - i'm not too worried about the mental fuck up at the moment, though you've always gotta be quick to spot when it stops being fun.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Jim on April 16, 2006, 01:54:02 PM
I haven't smoked since the day before Christmas Eve. I only smoked for two years, and now I feel fine. I don't feel as great as when I gave up for about a week or so a year ago (that feeling of real health was insane), but I sure as hell feel better for it, nor do I miss it at all.

Moaning non-smokers are arseholes, as are inconsiderate smokers, in as far as smokers who make out not having a cigarette to be a bigger deal than it is. I don't have much time for anybody passionate about either side of this argument. Designated smoking areas in all places is as far as I would argue for, as well as how far I would argue against.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: axl_rose_700 on April 16, 2006, 06:50:25 PM
U smokers should be hung from the nearest lamp-post.

Kill urself by all means - but its outrageous u can get away with killing the rest of us through passive smoking, it makes me livid - to say smokers are selfish is not nearly going far enough

rant over.



fuckin spot on, durin the whole banning smoking campaign i heard smokers complaining they will have to go outside for a fag.
not realisin that i often have to go outside for fresh air in my local due to their fuckin smoke, cunts


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Queen of Everything on April 16, 2006, 09:33:50 PM
U smokers should be hung from the nearest lamp-post.

Kill urself by all means - but its outrageous u can get away with killing the rest of us through passive smoking, it makes me livid - to say smokers are selfish is not nearly going far enough


I agree, but you just have to realise that not all smokers are like that.  The ones who rant and rave about having to suck their cancer sticks outside... they are the ones who piss me off.

The others, who will take their buisness outside, I have no problem with.  If they have respect for us ones who dont want to die young then thats f-i-n-e by me if they want to smoke.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: AxlsMainMan on April 17, 2006, 05:32:43 AM
Another thing that bothers me, is that often, non-smokers who bitch about smoking are the one's who leave their car idle for 20 minutes-half hour in the grocery store parking lot...

Dont bitch at me for polluting the air we breathe when you're contributing to the destruction of our atmosphere or our environment to the same extent, or even more detrimental.

In Ontario alone every year, something like 5,000 people die each year from pollution related diseases and cancers...

Sure smoking contributes to deaths, but so does a ton of shit nowadays...


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Where is Hassan Nasrallah ? on April 17, 2006, 05:43:34 AM
Another thing that bothers me, is that often, non-smokers who bitch about smoking are the one's who leave their car idle for 20 minutes-half hour in the grocery store parking lot...

Dont bitch at me for polluting the air we breathe when you're contributing to the destruction of our atmosphere or our environment to the same extent, or even more detrimental.

In Ontario alone every year, something like 5,000 people die each year from pollution related diseases and cancers...

Sure smoking contributes to deaths, but so does a ton of shit nowadays...

dont fight on another subject.
let's take the problems one by one.
1st cigarettes
then cars.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Evolution on April 18, 2006, 12:44:48 AM
Visited my local snooker bar on Friday and came out smelling exactly how I smelt on the way in.


To Scotland's smoking ban!  :beer:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: RichardNixon on April 18, 2006, 01:32:09 AM
I smoke and I don't care if it kills me by 60. Who wants to be old anyway?


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: SLCPUNK on April 18, 2006, 01:39:56 AM
Who wants to be old anyway?

I do!!!

Many ski resorts offer free skiing to seniors!

I am training for those years right now!



Title: Smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: SLCPUNK on April 18, 2006, 01:47:53 AM
Smokers:



(http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/2795/doctor28hj.gif) (http://imageshack.us)



Vs.



Non-Smokers:



(http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3198/healthy18ls.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)








Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: RichardNixon on April 18, 2006, 01:51:35 AM
Like I said, I don't give a damn. By the time I'm 60 all my loved ones will be dead. I rather just drop dead then go on living a shitty life and die alone at 90s in some nursing home when no one will visit or care if I'm alive. Fuck life.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Queen of Everything on April 18, 2006, 01:53:10 AM
Like I said, I don't give a damn. By the time I'm 60 all my loved ones will be dead. I rather just drop dead then go on living a shitty life and die alone at 90s in some nursing home when no one will visit or care if I'm alive. Fuck life.

Ahhh...? But think of all the new asses that will be around then!!

Smokers:



Vs.



Non-Smokers:





See, I was going to have a REALLY good reply for this, but I fucked up my keyboard with vomit.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: SLCPUNK on April 18, 2006, 03:06:03 AM
Like I said, I don't give a damn. By the time I'm 60 all my loved ones will be dead. I rather just drop dead then go on living a shitty life and die alone at 90s in some nursing home when no one will visit or care if I'm alive. Fuck life.

Aww......

When you're all done coughing, you can cry me a river..........


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: JennaSide on April 18, 2006, 08:09:11 AM
I'm a NY smoker as well... and I don't mind going outside for the most part, but I still think it should be up to the owners of each establishment whether or not to allow smoking. Especially in bars. There should be a few that still allow it... it's just part of the bar-atmosphere to me. Non-smokers wouldn't have to go there if they don't want to, but I think smokers should still have a few public places to go were they can partake in this agreeably unhealthy, yet ultimately legal activity.

I'm a considerate person. I won't light a cig around someone without asking if we're indoors and I abide by the rules and don't smoke in areas where I'm not allowed. I really try not to bother anyone - and that's what kills me about these righteous non-smokers that fling around insults and make a big to-do about a person's personal choice to smoke. I've gotten shit from people while outside smoking for christ's sake! These people need to get off their high horses.

People need to be respectful of eachother on both sides of the fence here.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: badapple81 on April 18, 2006, 08:24:14 AM
I understand your view but I think you would do it tough to find a bar that would make themselves non smoking, particulary if there are others that allow smoking, they would just miss out on those extra profits.

On another note, isn't it funny how there is this push and trend in many countires/states to ban smoking yet the same states and countries contemplate legalising weed  :-\


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: JennaSide on April 18, 2006, 08:52:44 AM
I think a non-smoking bar would pull in more than a few of these non-smokers. It seems like there are more and more of them everywhere - I think it would be just as profitable.

and yes, very hypocritical with the weed thing, isn't it?  ???


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Backslash on April 18, 2006, 10:32:36 AM
I understand your view but I think you would do it tough to find a bar that would make themselves non smoking, particulary if there are others that allow smoking, they would just miss out on those extra profits.

I don't think so... I think bars that don't allow smoking would bring in more people who wouldn't go to bars before because of the smoking.  I know that bars here in this province have seen an increase in profits since the smoking ban has hit.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Chelle on April 18, 2006, 12:20:38 PM
I understand your view but I think you would do it tough to find a bar that would make themselves non smoking, particulary if there are others that allow smoking, they would just miss out on those extra profits.

I don't think so... I think bars that don't allow smoking would bring in more people who wouldn't go to bars before because of the smoking.? I know that bars here in this province have seen an increase in profits since the smoking ban has hit.

Really?? I would go.? I love the smell of smoke on someone, but I can't stand to be sitting at a bar with some jerk blowing it right in my face, which happens pretty often.? ?:-\


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Jim on April 18, 2006, 01:30:15 PM
Okay then I wanna work in a sewer. And discover sewage that no-one's ever discovered! And pile it on my head, then come to the surface and sell myself to a modern art gallery! And he said, 'What the hell have you been smoking?
You certainly haven't been smoking in a bar in California, that's for sure...'
Because you can't! No smoking, and pretty soon no drinking and no talking.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: MCT on April 18, 2006, 01:37:10 PM
I know that bars here in this province have seen an increase in profits since the smoking ban has hit.

What's that slogan they got on the go now?


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Backslash on April 18, 2006, 01:38:41 PM
the big thing here now is VLTs. haha


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: MCT on April 18, 2006, 01:45:04 PM
Yeah, the VLT's are getting cut back. It's now Single Diamond, Single Bonus and Red Hot Seven.


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: AxlsMainMan on April 20, 2006, 01:59:59 PM
I understand your view but I think you would do it tough to find a bar that would make themselves non smoking, particulary if there are others that allow smoking, they would just miss out on those extra profits.

I don't think so... I think bars that don't allow smoking would bring in more people who wouldn't go to bars before because of the smoking.? I know that bars here in this province have seen an increase in profits since the smoking ban has hit.

Really?? I would go.? I love the smell of smoke on someone, but I can't stand to be sitting at a bar with some jerk blowing it right in my face, which happens pretty often.? ?:-\

Loves the smell of smoke eh..? :-[ :-*



Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Prometheus on April 21, 2006, 10:01:10 AM
I understand your view but I think you would do it tough to find a bar that would make themselves non smoking, particulary if there are others that allow smoking, they would just miss out on those extra profits.

I don't think so... I think bars that don't allow smoking would bring in more people who wouldn't go to bars before because of the smoking.? I know that bars here in this province have seen an increase in profits since the smoking ban has hit.


LOL


BS thats such crap...... the VLTs "cash cow" for Danny, is suffering bigtime because of the ban, alot of bars on George are getting hit hard by the ban with lower turnout..... NL is a small market, and it will take years for the profit turn around to actualy be seen.

I know for a fact that out home and well anywhere outside the Capital region is having a very rough go of the ban. ALOT less patrons nad not the expected turn out for non-smokers. In SJ if you removed MUN from the equation thats 12k students..... youd be hurting big time @ clubs like etomik, peddlers, Konfusion..... etc. The ones that are still staying above water are teh ones that have a select clientel, and had them before the ban..... where else are they to go? stay home? no... lol

I have alot of friend s that bounce DT and they keep telling me the same stories... one good night a weekend.... never two like before, or more....

now ill say this as well.... there was a rather large decline in club goers from '00 - '05, simply because the bars sayed exactly the same for 20yrs..... its the reason why Etomik took off, same with Liquid, and Konfusion..... however Konfusion is on a huge slide as of now..... but it will rebound in the next while......

The bar industry is somethign that you have t sin money into to be a leader and be full.... you have to change the chemiestry of the bar before the patron look for the new fix......thats the sign of a good bar.

Take the VIP over peddlers...... thats a rough spot on people...... ive seen far too many good loking nice girls get asked to leave or not let in because they were not slutty enough...... Come the fuck on..... I remember one night in particular that i was there and i never even had to pay cover..... i went pissed and came back and this bouncer was told to toss this chick i was talking to.... i was amazed..... told her to stay... but she was so nice about t.... and then there are huge bitches that get in al the time...... Well illoked at the bouncer and asked him why... he said he was told to and didnt agree with it either.... so i got him to ge tthe manager or whoever was that told him to toss her..... and i told the dude that im here with 15 guys all having a good time.... (about 20% of the ppl there) and were drinking like mad.... we'll walk right now if this girl was tossed.... and never come back..... he stoped looked at me and siad hed be back..... he went and asked how much we were drinking bar chick said we were already pushing $600 in sales.... he came back and said not a prob shes in it was his mistake......


lol

misses was all weird then.... and left within 15 mins.... but still it was the point......


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: AUSTRALIAN_TSUNAMI on April 21, 2006, 10:07:30 AM
smokers piss me off!~!, give someone else cancer!  :rant:


Title: Re: smokers vs non-smokers
Post by: Prometheus on April 21, 2006, 10:20:58 AM
so i stay in the "lane" and dont merge other threads into this.... its not a vip but it is a vip... its weird.... its SJ what can i say?